Topic: Assault weapon bans - page 3. (Read 36619 times)

My political leanings are more or less negligible, though am admittedly fascinated by the discourse.  There isn't a "party" that I can agree with or that represents my views, so I can't claim to be a libertarian, or anarchist, or any of that.  I am probably not even old enough to have enough perspective or energy for political matters being still shy of my 50th birthday by a few years.  My guiding principle is that more love is better, and am motivated to increase that where I can. 

It does seem like you have at lease some reasonable positions, at least about what could constitute "aggression" from your recounting of those proposals, and it looks at least like some NAP advocates that have a loud voice in the discourse would agree with you.

Those proposals don't seem likely to occur though, and I'd be reluctant to tar one person's beliefs onto another, or even on to the same person over time.  People have minds that change.  I'd venture that there are probably scant few "Libertarians" that would stand by and let that knife juggler endanger themselves if they were faced with such an event....

But I have found that there are many that are far too eager to create laws to solve social problems.  It seems to make little sense to take a single event or single bad action by an individual person (especially one who is particularly bad at making high quality decisions), and on that basis advocate increased law (guns) be applied to everyone pre-emptively on the off chance that they may become a knife-juggler.

Bringing this discussion back a bit to guns and assault.  Most all of the folks who are particularly bad decision makers in the US at least tend to make these bad decisions while under the influence of some particularly harsh psychoactive substances... Selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors being the biggest culprit here.  If one were to advocate a ban, SSRIs might be a more likely target than the particular weapon at issue, but I wouldn't even go that far myself.  There is probably some good purpose for them and they are perhaps simply over-prescribed?  It may not be an all out BAN that is needed, and just a bit more judicious use?

I don't really care.

The thread was some 100 plus pages long. Those generally against libertarianism were arguing that that the knife juggler should be tied up, and people can't keep nuclear weapons. The anti-government crowd were quite adamant that such individuals cannot be violated against unless directly threatening you. I'm being serious.

I'll repeat myself.  Two wrongs don't make a right.  Returning insult does not accomplish anything useful, and can only be "bad".

As usual, I'm not following your logic.  I am starting to be convinced your argument does not have logic, it is purely emotional and without reason.

M

Did you claim these extreme examples of passive aggression were not aggression, or did they?
If it was they, then it looks like you are right and they were wrong about what is non-aggression, at least according to this guy:
http://andrewglidden.com/refining-the-nap-with-passive-aggression/
But again, I am in no way an expert on NAP and the definition of "aggression" may be a moving target for the principle, for all I know.

Fair enough. Two years ago I was not here. But ten years ago, I was quite articulate and well informed on the actual meaning of NAP, and the two examples you cited, whatever some troll might have said, are clear violations of NAP, as both unnecessarily endanger other persons. That is an initiation of force. They might have an affirmative defense if they were doing so unwittingly, but not a real good one.

I am an anarchist. I do not subscribe to the idea that ANY group has the right either morally, ethically, or legally to have a monopoly of force. If you truly had people arguing the positions you describe, they were being deliberately obtuse, or perhaps had some sort of mental problem. Like a missing frontal lobe, at that scale of stupid. You won't find such arguments among honest proponents of anarchy, in any flavor that I've encountered.

The only utility I see in central governments is instructive. It's been done to death, and the results have always been sub-optimal. How bad on the scale is variable, but they always grow out of control. There has never been an exception that I am aware of, and I'm pretty damn aware.

Anarchy hasn't really been tried in any sort of a planned manner, other than small groups who either failed to plan or failed to properly promote themselves. Yet the time between the fall of a centralized structure usually has a period first of utter chaos, then people start to organize themselves spontaneously, and for a minute before some jackass feels the urge to rule, a lot of positive things happen. Industries sprout up, people innovate, and nobody steps on them. This is something I could go on for many pages on. In fact, I've been writing a book on the subject for some time. Unfortunately, I haven't had the time to devote to bring it to market, but I am hoping to change that.

I do tend to get short with people who deliberately mischaracterize the substance of anarchic arguments, because they almost never have an actual argument. And that goes both ways. Those who are "anarchists" because they find it amusing or fashionable annoy me just as much as the knee jerk statist. This is my failing, and I know it. Doesn't always restrain me.

I will try to be more patient. I would ask that you try to see, if not agree, with what we as anarchists are actually trying to do, rather than what the "left" and the "right" boot of rulership tells you we're trying to do. They are the intellectual enemies of anarchists, and for good reason: If we are right, even on a small scale, they quickly become obsolete and might have to do something productive.

Do you wish to discuss this? Or not?

We've been discussing NAP here for a long time. Right back to the days over two years ago when the NAP proponents were going on about the injustice of violating the rights of a knife juggler practicing his art of juggling on an inflatable raft with five other passengers in the middle of the ocean with sharks circling.

Don't even make assumptions about our awareness of NAP.

We were discussing it back in the days when the NAP proponents were saying how wrong it would be to violate the rights of people who wished to walk about with rain drop triggered nuclear weapons on cloudy days.

Rassah, haven't you figured out yet that these two have no idea what NAP means? I think they think we're taking a sleep break

For those who don't know, the wiki link is pretty decent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

But, again, that's only one wrong. What is the second wrong you were talking about that supposedly is OK with NAP?

And if you insult someone and are wrong, then your idiocy should be pointed out by a returning insult. Thus, not only is my logic not flawed, but you are wrong. However, I will be kind and generous, and not fling an insult your way.

I believe your logic is flawed.  Self defense is not wrong.  You attack me, my property, or my loved ones, I will defend myself.  You would be in the wrong, not I.

M

If you wish to engage in serious debate, argumentation, conversation, speculations, idea sharing, often free of insults, all about political systems and conditions, then it might be a possibility. I tell you what, you have my ears and dialog, if you reciprocate in serious debate, argumentation, and conversation regarding film and film criticism in some other thread.

Dammit, don't steal my lines!

Been using that one for better than 20 years now

and @Rassah, I loved that write up. Very similar to how I see things going. I haven't time right now, but I want to respond in detail to that.

Only because that simple quip suggests something seriously wrong, either in your understanding of nap, or your view of defending yourself when attacked.

It sounds like you're trying to have a serious conversation in regard to some some simple banter. Hush now.

I always thought it meant that the bringer of the insults had lost the argument on the merits.

But NAP is basically answering a wrong (initiated aggression) with self defense. That's all NAP is, One: Aggression and Two: Self-defense. You claimed the two make a right, which you just said you don't have a problem with, yet you called the two, self-defense, a wrong ("two wrongs do make a right"). What was the second wrong that you believe NAP has if not the self-defense/hitting back/insulting back?

Not at all! You hit me, I hit back!

And if you insult me, I have no issues insulting back. It's mdude77 who you should take up arms against. Leave me out of it.

According to you (this statement you just made) self defense is wrong.